Campaign and Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country

Google Ads

Site Stats

OK-Sen/OK-Gov: Coburn's Plans Uncertain, and Could Include a Gov Run

Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 8:38 PM EDT

It seems that no one knows what Tom Coburn will do in 2010, and The Hill thinks he might bail:

Coburn's exit would throw a safe seat into the realm of possibility for Democrats, who have two attractive candidates available in term-limited Gov. Brad Henry and Rep. Dan Boren.

While Bunning took heat for raising a paltry $27,000 in the fourth quarter of 2008, Coburn raised just $19,000 and had far less cash on hand - $55,000 - than any other senator up for reelection next year.

Coburn might in fact have his sights set elsewhere:

One Oklahoma GOP consultant suggested it wouldn't even be surprising to see Coburn wind up running for governor, despite his having said that he wouldn't and the presence of an early party favorite in Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.).

I'm skeptical about any Dem chances for picking up the Senate seat. But I'm delighted at the possibility of Tom Coburn just mucking things up in general. If he does wimp out on a re-election bid, the hapless Tom Cole might run to replace him, and he'd be fun to kick around some more even if he won in a romp.

He's a pain in the ass for the Dem Majority, but he's also a pain in the ass to the GOP. It's hard to know whether losing him helps us or them more. It's nice having someone totally off-message and critical of his own caucus over in their party.

On balance, since we're in the majority and one senator has the power to gum up the works quite badly, I think losing him helps us more. But if we were to wind up with 63 seats next congress (meaning we could override his holds on our own), it would be pretty hilarious having one of their 37 be Coburn.

Without Coburn in the Senate. He puts holds on all kinds of popular legislation (which of course Harry Reid is only too happy to honor) and single-handedly gums up the works. He causes far more problems for us than for his own side.

the reason the senate moves so slow and almost nothing gets and Republicans especially are given far to many concessions on anything that does pass, (despite the fact they never did that for Democrats and still treat there Democratic fellows with total disrespect, refusing to allow even bipartisan amendments to FISA to be presented to the flow with objections), and Reid simply captiluates and goes into the backrooms to wheel an deal. I'd like to see more of Reid forcing Republicans to stand up in front of the cameras in front of the nation and block the entire political process in the name of a highly conservative philosophy significantly to the right of the nation as a whole. Come on Harry, just do it, do it once or twice. They made Strom Thurmond stand for 30 hours straight speaking against the VRA, now that, regardless of how you feel on the issue, is some serious stamina and dedication. Go after them and quit compromising on every issue. You are the majority now, you don't have to go to them to compromise, they should come to you to compromise because they are the ones that come out badly if they block the political process. Since you are in the majority they will look like the ones who refused to compromise, they will be the ones who get the flack over it.

I dont think theres much of a chance he gets the job during an Obama presidency. Not really that hes from IL (afterall, ex-House Maj. Leaders Armey & DeLay were from TX during the Bush Admin.) but that hes from IL combined with being close friends & political allies with Obama. I never heard that Armey was with Bush and I know for a fact DeLay wasnt (even though they share a similar personal story...2 Texans who are recovering alcholics and born again christians). I would think, if Reid loses in 2010 or resigns his Maj. Leader position before the Obama admin. is over, then Schumer or Boxer is the next in line. Schumer more likely than Boxer given that, with Boxer, youd have two 'Bay Area Liberals' with the top 2 congressional positions. Wouldnt look good in the 'heartland'.

And having the President's support, assuming that Obama remains reasonably popular, isn't a bad thing among Senate Democrats. Senators (and particularly Democrats) tend to give their support to the "next guy in line". Just look at a list of Whips and Leaders of the Senate, you see that most of the names who appear as being Party Leaders are also Party Whips.

And Schumer doesn't exactly do anything for your Heartland problem either (if Senate Democrats really care) as he's generally been an NYC politician (hell Durbin easily has Schumer beat in that regard being from southern Illinois which is quite "heartland").

True, Schumer wont be much better in the heartland than Boxer but at least hes pretty centrist, outside of the Iraq War, on foreign policy. Though many rural folks in the prarie states are pretty dovish.

Which was a big reason (aside from his being an extremely poor leader) that I didn't like Daschle as Majority leader. Better to have a leader from a safe state/district. For example, people in North Dakota love Conrad and Dorgan, but if either ever became Majority Leader it's likely their support would plummet because they would be in the headlines far more, often needing to take unpopular stances in their state.

I'm not a big Boren fan, but I'll take any Democrat and Boren gives us the best shot of a win outside of Henry who doesn't seem to want to run for anything. And despite Boren's conservative tendencies I don't think he'd even pull a party switch on us given his family history.

even in Oklahoma. At the very least, an open seat here would be one more headache for the NRSC. Even if Coburn does indeed run for re-election, with numbers like that we might be able to massively outspend him, thus requiring the national committees to step in.

He refused to endorse Obama, and then he said the stimulus "Became a Democrat bill and not an American bill." I have no problem with the fact that he's a conservative dem, and if he could go to the Senate and refrain from saying and doing things that undermine the Democratic party, I would be pleased, but if he went to the Senate without changing the way he acts, well, the things he does will get a lot more attention as one of 100 senators than as one of 435 representatives.

I think Boren is all too eager to step into the Lieberman/Kerrey/Breaux role - something I imagined Harold Ford would have readily done had he won. I think he could be pretty damaging to us as a senator.

And even though Ben Nelson has tended to be more conservative in his voting than Bob Kerrey was, it's also true that Nelson tended to just keep his mouth shut instead of actively trashing Democrats (which is really all we ask of Democrats in Nebraska)

When talking about Ben Nelson. Yeah he does angry me at times due his beat red voting records. But I do hand it to him, he keeps his mouth shut and just votes. He's not like Boren and dosen't hesitate to trash fellow Dems. Plus he endorsed Obama when the primary was still in the tossup phase. Ever since then I respected the man a bit for his action. He's wasn't like Boren who refused to endorse Obama then trashed the man for being the most liberal Senators in the Senate, buy into the national journal voting ranking bullshit.

this is one of the few cases, see Bobby Bright, where a garden variety wingnut Repub may be better than a turncoat Democrat. If Boren kept his mouth shut, it would be fine, but it is unlikely he will or ever vote with us on basically anything.

Hopefully if Coburn retires, Henry could be persuaded to run. I think he'd turn out to be a lot like Evan Bayh or Mary Landrieu in his voting habits, which would be pretty damn good considering where he's from.

Itd be interesting to see Henry's voting record as a Senator. Hes a conservative Democrat as Governor yet ive heard he was much more liberal when he was in the OK state legislature. Perhaps hed be more liberal ss Senator, perhaps hed become more conservative, or perhaps hed stay where he is. but its hard to compare...as a Gov. and Sen. are very different. A Gov. does much more than just sign/veto bills and introduce legislation.

Boren would easily be the worst Democrat in the Senate. It gets to the point where the relatively few things they vote with us on are totally overshadowed by the fact that they trash us everywhere and make it much easier to construct that "divide Dems" media narrative we can't seem to shake.

Besides, he's a FairTax nutter for Christsakes. The only time that would be remotely acceptable for a Dem is if they represent a very conservative suburban district. No reason to bring that trash to the Dem Caucus in the Senate.

I think thats an insane position to take, too, but really...theres a 0% chance that issue would get taken up in the Senate. Whether in a bill or a judicial nominee. Even Bush wouldnt have appointed a judicial nominee with known pro-death penalty for abortionists views.

With 60 reliable Democratic votes, Tom Coburn is irrelevant. You can ignore his holds and you don't have to care that he never votes for cloture.

Whereas in that situation Dan Boren would still have to be listened to. He'd foster a 'Democrats divided' narrative, he'd publically attack Democratic policies and allow Republicans to piggyback on his attacks and he'd allow centrist Senators stuck in the mindset of the 90s like Evan Bayh to wield more power (likely to disastrous effect for Democratic electoral prospects).

Granted, there's a limit to how much harm he could do. But if we already have 60 Democrats, then there's a much more severe limit to how much use he could be.

And if Dan Boren wins in Oklahoma, it will have been a good enough night that we'll already be over 60 seats and probably 65 too.

Sure, this perspective could backfire if the electoral tide turns against us in a few cycles, but then Dan Boren would be voting with us even less and the Republicans are never going to be stupid enough to give Coburn real power in the caucus. Not even Jonah Goldberg wants that.

As long as he would vote for cloture, I'd be fine with him voting against the nominee to get a little bit of political cover. He'd definitely be in the Nelson, Bayh mode, but I'll take that over a Coburn clone any day.

The leftnuts don't understand that it isn't VOTING that matters, it is CLOTURE.

The chances a Democrat will vote for cloture, and then vote a nominee up or down -- like the vast majority of the country on either side wants to see politicians do. Coburn will of course never vote for cloture.

Three or four blue dogs that bring the caucus up to 63 will end gridlock on nominees, and many issues. Instead of kissing Susan Collins ass, we'd occassionally have to kiss a blue dog ass, but much more often get up and down votes, which would even allow four or five more Senators to vote against legislation. In other words, add a couple more blue dogs, and we'll get more progressive legislation passed 55-45.

I don't think most of us who think Boren is a tool are anti-Blue Dog as much as anti-Boren and his ilk. In fact, I enthusiastically support my Blue Dog congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords even though I don't see eye to eye with her all the time because I know my district and realize that at the end of the day, a Grijalva Democrat isn't gonna win out here (well, he'd win in my neighborhood, but that's neither here nor there). More importantly, she doesn't savage fellow Dems all the damn time. She uses her media appearances to discuss issues that help us reach out to moderates, like scientific innovation and sensible immigration reform, unlike say, Boren, who used his media appearances to stress the fact that he refuses to endorse our party's nominee and otherwise kneecap our party.

I'd be fine with a Sen. Henry or a Sen. Savage or someone like that. It's just that spending DSCC money to support someone whose clearly only hanging around this party to keep his father happy is ludicrous.

Im not sure if hed vote for cloture. The actual vote, right now, does not matter. But senators are elected for 6 years. Who knows what the composition of the Senate will look like in 2015, 2016. With that said, Dan Boren being elected to the Senate is better, politically, for the Dems than if a Republican was elected to the seat.

personally. I'd be open to a mixed approach where the sales tax or VAT is in place, along with a hefty graduated income tax for incomes over 150K, while income taxes are eliminated for incomes less than that.

But only after the economy recovers. I don't want to diminish consumption now.

Im open to it, as well, i guess as part of my libertarian streak. With regards to your plan...i dont think itd work if it was a graduated income of 150k & over and no income tax for everything under 150k. As everyone making around 150k to 200k (maybe more, too late to do the math lol) would cut their salary so they can get to the 149k-under bracket. or else theyd be taking home less money than those making 149k. also i think it should be adjusted to cost of living. Those making 150k in the Bay Area, Manhattan, Boston, and other high cost of living areas are different than those making 150k in West Virginia, Mississippi and other low cost of living areas. In fact i have heard in many of those ultra high cost of living areas someone making around 100k a year isnt even considered wealthy, but just merely middle class.

the first 150K would be exempt from income tax under my plan, no matter how high your salary is. If you reduced your salary from 200K to 149K, your would just be giving up 51K in salary, even if taxes took a chunk out of that 51K.

What is so libertarian about the Fair Tax? I've always wondered this. Basically it's a boon for poor and very rich and a big FU to the middle class. Also, it would make most Americans completely dependent on the monthly rebate check in order to survive. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Doesnt Collin Peterson also support that? Or use to? I know theres been talk in the past of him running for Sen. in MN and while hes certainly qualified I just cant see him winning a Dem primary there. Where would he get his votes? Hes too socially conservative for the liberal professionals in the Twin Cities area and probably too economically conservative for the blue collar workers everywhere outside his district (such as the Iron Range). Plus he supports legislation that would let a part of Minnesota vote to secede from the United States to join Canada. Not saying he supports such a secession but he does support the right for them to vote on it. I dont think thatd fly in most of MN.

He wont run for Senate, been in the House far too long and chairs the Ag committee.

He'd never win the DFL endorsement or the primary, point blank period.

And he's for the secession of this one part in Lake of the Woods County which is actually not even connected to the US as a lake cuts it off from the rest of the country. In order for like kids to go to school, they have to drive through the Canadian border to go around the Lake and then back into the US once they're around it. Secession makes a lot of sense to me if they aren't even connected to the US, but well, tell that to Alaska or Hawaii. Granted, they at least have a bit more freedom in their area, these people are literally stuck in Canada but still on American soil.

Well I know theres no chance he runs for it. I was just mentioning it because there had been some people talking him up in the past. Hed have no shot at winning the primary and he wouldnt want to give up seniority. I dont personally oppose such a secession myself. i dont know enough about that area to really form an opinion. but i personally would actually have no problem if many native american reservations had their own country, so long as they were able to get adequate care and funding (and itd have to be from the U.S. or the UN).

And, more importantly even, we need people in Oklahoma learning to pull the (D) lever. Getting the state to trend more like Texas and Kansas would be a tremendous improvement, and the way to do that is to elect more Blue Dogs to the House or Senate.

Henry would be better, but he thinks he can just take a vacation for four years and be able to come back and win an election to something. I doubt he'd run against Coburn, but an open seat, maybe, since it will obviously be his best shot.

Is that you sure like to call people idiots and fools. I can't stop you from thinking that way, but if you could kindly make your points without insulting other folks' intelligence, I would appreciate it.

to distinguish between people and ideas. I didn't call the person an idiot. I said his statement was idiotic. They are not remotely the same thing.

In politics a lot of hyperbole and silliness gets thrown around. Saying Miller would be better on issues than Coburn but "I would rather see a Repub Coburn than a Dem Zell Miller" is a ridiculous statement.

would be an improvement over Coburn, but Boren won't run unless Coburn retires. If Coburn does retire, I would guess that the Republican candidate would be one of the reps, all of whom are quite boring except for Sullivan's criminal history. If one of them were to go to the senate, they would probably be there what they are in the house: a dull backbencher. However, if Boren were to become a senator, he would probably never miss an opportunity to talk smack about the Democratic party and his fellow Democrats. Plus, his voting record would most likely be only slightly to the left of a generic republican.

There is simply a HUGE difference in the voting of Blue Dog Democrats and conservative Republicans. Even on Boren's weakest measure (lifetime crucial votes), the diffference between him and a generic OK Republican is greater than the differnce between a generic Blue Dog and a generic Progressive Democrat. Replacing a Coburn with a Boren does more to shift the overall political center of Congress than replacing an Al Wynn with a Donna Edwards.

We can all certainly agree a Dem in any seat is going to be better than a Repub in any seat, pretty much now anyway.

Many of our complaints is that these Dems do not vote as progressively or in sync with Dem policies as would other Dems who could beat other incumbents but who wont receive DCCC funds. Instead of helping Bright, we could've helped Segall, who wouldve been a better investment vote wise.

1. It's more expensive to run ads in AL-03 than it is in AL-02 (to the tune of roughly 2-1) what that means is that $1,100,000 (which is roughly what the DCCC spent in AL-02) that would be the same as spending only $600,000 in AL-03.

2. That argument presupposes Segall was ever seen as having anything close to a reasonable chance of winning before the election. I've seen so many people try to re-write history, but from where I sit, there wasn't a single organization which ever saw this race as being anything better than Likely Republican, Republican Favored, etc. Segall's narrow loss wasn't exactly something to expect, you know. Which leads me to...

3. If the DCCC had spent money in AL-03 and then Segall lost it by the same margin or slightly less (which is possible) instead of spending money in AL-02 and subsequently Bright loses by a point or two, then you know what you have? You have two conservative Republicans in two districts which like to elect lunatic Republicans. This sounds insane, but remember that Bright only won by the skin of his teeth while Segall lost by 6 points. Meaning that the DCCC has now spent over $1.2 million and gotten absolutely nothing for it. An investment is good only when there is a reasonable chance that it pays off, otherwise it's no different than going to the casino and putting a million on 7 at the roulette table.

I'm not convinced Segall was all that progressive to begin with. I'll guarantee his record wouldn't be too terribly left of Bright's this early in his House career as he'd want to protray a very moderate image.

for ratings. They weight the vote for Speaker and other procedural votes too heavily.

Bright votes with the Dems about 10% of the time on real legislation. That is better than the 0% that Repub Jay Love would have, but Jay Love doesn't cost us anything to defend and doesn't cause our caucus to become discordant.

can afford a bit of discordance. Bright is right about where Gene Taylor is and Taylor had to get even more Republican that Bright to be safe today. Give him a few cycles to get the target off his back. Taylor had a pair of close runs in 1994 and 1996, after initially losing to the Harrison County Sheriff in 1988 for Trent Lott's seat. However that man tragically died in a plane crash I believe, forcing a special election in 1989.

In other words, incapable of governing (or getting along with any state legislature -- no matter which party is in control) due to his tendency to obstinately cling to his hard-right Hooveresque economic proclivities.

We don't have to go with someone like Boren and all is not lost if Brad Henry doesn't run. With the exception of the members of the Corporation Commission, all the statewide office holders in Oklahoma are Democrats (and three of them are women). If Bob Menendez would get out in the field and meet with some of these folks, who knows, he might be able to scare up a decent candidate.

I haven't yet developed a hatred of Bobby Bright. Either he hasn't done enough to make me hate him, or what he's done is so low-key that I haven't noticed.

Zell Miller I openly hate. I consider him a traitor, who was once more reasonable but suddenly decided to become an absolute asshole of a wingnut (probably due to a close race). He'd better either ignore my hatred of him or do something that changes my opinion of him.

Boren, by what some of you seem to describe, is nearly as bad as Zell. The question is: is he? Or is he slightly better, or slightly worse?

And what would replacing Coburn with Zell Miller be like? Would there actually be any difference? Because so far as I've heard, I estimate Miller's effective PP score to be 0% (i.e. effective personal PVI R+50, the maximum).

As for Coburn, someone answer me this, is the following statement true? Coburn is more insane and less evil, Inhofe is more evil and less insane.

Maybe a more useful question is, who has more trouble getting re-elected?

Dang, all my tiny paragraphs are making my comment look like one of etl's.

Even if I were a Dem (Im an Indy) I probably wouldnt have bad personal feelings towards him. I was able to meet him during the 96 Summer Olympics when taking a tour of the Gov. Mansion. This was after the terrorist attack (im guessing a few days afterwards) and so he could have made any excuse in the world to not meet 'out of state tourists'. Very nice guy and whod have thought, just a few years later, hed be so well known nationally.

2010 has to be a really good year for the Dems to be able to pick up a Senate seat in OK. Unless its Brad Henry whos the nominee and even with him itd still be a tough fight. I hate to say this but if it were JC Watts vs. Dan Boren...then i could see the Dems winning it in a neutral year. I know Watts was elected a U.S. Rep in a very 'traditional' area...but this is OK as a whole and to the U.S. Senate. Racism could be a factor. But i think hes more likely to run for Gov. than Sen.

but I dont think any Dem in OK can win that Senate seat save for Henry and even then, I think he still could lose. Federal races vs state races, as we all know, and I'm using that principle to justify my argument.

Alaska, in 2004, is a good example. Tony Knowles was a very popular ex-Gov. and he still lost to a, shall we say, quite controversial appointed Senator. Sure AK is a breed of its own (Ted Stevens nearly won for christ sakes) but i think its still a good example that popular former ex-Govs (or current ones) may not necessarily win. Even against a bad or mediocre candidate. Murkowski seems to be safe in 2010, though. voters seem to have forgotten all about her appointment. and, in all fairness, who wouldnt have accepted such an appointment? i dont know why voters held that against her. hold it against her dad...but not her. shes just dont what any of them would have done (if they were in politics, that is)